Govt Docs Reveal Canadian Telcos Promise Surveillance Ready Networks 74
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports
that Canadian telecom and Internet providers have tried to convince
the government that they will voluntarily build surveillance
capabilities into their networks. Hoping to avoid legislative
requirements, the providers argue that "the telecommunications
market will soon shift to a point where interception capability will
simply become a standard component of available equipment, and that
technical changes in the way communications actually travel on
communications networks will make it even easier to intercept
communications."
Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
1. High costs to customers, check.
2. Slow speeds, check.
3. No expenses spared upgrading intercept capabilities for the government, priceless!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew it, our telecommunications companies have been bought by John Hammond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're at ~1943 already.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Godwin in 2. Not bad, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
'Godwin's Law' in the idiotic modern interpretation, is primarily used to defend the actions of Nazis.
'You said you want to muder all Jews. You're a Nazi!'
'Ha-ha. Godwin's Law! You lose!'
I'm sure I remember Godwin once saying how embarrassed he was about the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
'Godwin's Law' in the idiotic modern interpretation, is primarily used to defend the actions of Nazis.
The only problem with that argument is that it flies in the face of the facts. Nobody defended the Nazis. Nobody said anything about wanting to murder all Jews. And as far as I am aware, the Nazis didn't implement surveillance on Internet traffic.
This was the correct usage of Godwin's Law, where a discussion that was completely unrelated to the Nazis was likened to that regime. I think that you have been a bit over-sensitive to the adage.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the actual Godwin's Law, as stated by Godwin:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"
That's it. It's true, it's kind of amusing, it's otherwise pointless.
The new, improved, Godwin's Law is: "If anyone says anything about Nazis, I can shout 'Godwin's Law' and shut down the discussion".
The only people who benefit from that are Nazis, because they can shut down any discussion about Nazis. No sane person should ever use the fake 'Godwi
Re: (Score:2)
The new, improved, Godwin's Law is: "If anyone says anything about Nazis, I can shout 'Godwin's Law' and shut down the discussion".
That's not a new interpretation; that dates back to the 90s. But it also does not in any way defend the actions of Nazis as you claimed. It was merely (and generally humorously) used as an indication that a thread had exhausted all the valid arguments and had devolved to the old fall back line of the Hitler comparison.
As we have seen here, the original mention of Godwin's Law did not stop the postings here, and nor did it request the end of the discussion (although it has sidetracked it).
The only people who benefit from that are Nazis, because they can shut down any discussion about Nazis.
It does not shut an
Re: So basically the Nazis are taking over (Score:1)
No, it was not. It was drawing a valid parallel with the encroachment against civil, non militarised society being made by an industrialised and militarised autocratic class that is now well advanced in Western nations.
Godwin's Law's purpose is to end a discussion once it reaches a non sensical level of hysteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin's Law's purpose is to end a discussion once it reaches a non sensical level of hysteria.
I have addressed this point elsewhere, but while some people use Godwin's Law to say that an argument has gone on long enough once Hitler has been mentioned it is not the actual purpose of the law. It is merely an observation, and as such is still applicable in this discussion's context.
It is also very clear that the person who mentioned Godwin was clearly doing it to be amusing and was in no way attempting to stifle any conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not an example of Godwin as the comparison is on topic (authoritarian regime). A Godwin would be comparing your statement to Hitler or Nazism.
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin's Law makes no reference to the aptness of the comparison to the Nazis or Hitler. Here is the law as stated by Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." - that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Re: (Score:3)
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies[citation needed], if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
From the same source as yours. We're having a discussion about the current Authoritarian regime ruling Canada and how they want to spy on the citizens they are supposed to be working for.
Re: (Score:2)
And as your cited quote said, its application to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies is debatable. You may interpret it that way, but it does not actually make it part of Godwin's Law. Your interpretation may guide your usage of it, but you can't actually say that other people's usage is incorrect.
In any case, the reference to the law was purely a humorous statement, and really not worthy of this debate.
I don't see what the Telcos have to do... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that everyone is not doing this. The data collected by the big routers and voice switches can still be very incriminating to someone of a criminal or political, but I repeat myself, inclination. All of these capabilities are built into the hardware because the US government and other governments around the world requires it as part of 'lawful intercept' regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't see what the Telcos have to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
You store your phone calls and text messages in the cloud?
Sure. NSA's cloud. Epsilon's cloud. CSEC's cloud if you're in Canada.
Not that surprising thanks to CALEA (Score:2)
Since the US has required access network operators to implement CALEA support many products are already being designed with lawful intercept functionality anyways. Implementing it isn't a problem really, just so long as it's not abused it's not that different from a telephone wiretap.
Re:Not that surprising thanks to CALEA (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is it will be abused. It will be used for things beyond the scope they claimed it will be. It will essentially suffer from the same kind of scope creep all of this surveillance shit does.
What they say now as "oh, we'll only use this for national security stuff" becomes tomorrow's "well, we had to invent parallel construction to conceal what we do with that stuff we promised was only for national security".
This stuff is designed to give law enforcement unfettered access to anything, while keeping that access secret from the rest of us. And in the case of Canada, this pretty much bypasses privacy legislation
I'm pretty much convinced that all elected officials voting in favor of this crap have forfeited all right to claim any of their information is private while saying they have access to all of our information.
These clowns have been undermining some of the basic premises of Western societies.
Worthless bastards.
Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
We have civil forfiture lawsthat were set up to fight "organize crime" now they are being used by butt hurt Crown Counsels as secondary punishment when the cases dont go their way. Even the judges have stepped in the made statements about it in BC.
Re: (Score:1)
As a resident of BC, I am of the opinion that civil forfeiture MUST be tied to a criminal conviction that is RELATED to the crime committed.
Re: (Score:2)
Worthless? To whom? Maybe you forgot who they work for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The problem is it will be abused. It will be used for things beyond the scope they claimed it will be."
And that's intentional. Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who
Re: (Score:2)
Your quote about Chris Hedges was interesting.
Especially to those of us who've read enough history (or are just old enough) to know that this sort of thing has been believed by pretty much every generation in history.
First time I ever saw something along these lines was about 40 years ago. And included a quote from Cicero (?) about the failings of the latest generation of Romans at his time...
Re: (Score:1)
...just so long as it's not abused...
Priceless!
Re: (Score:1)
You haven't read enough history.
Re: (Score:1)
But why? (Score:1)
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
If it was regulatory the same work would be needed but then the companies could say to the angry users: "We didn't want to, those people you elected forced us to do it".
By being voluntary it doesn't make mainstream news, people don't vote against it, and users who do find out trust their telco less.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing. If it was regulatory the same work would be needed but then the companies could say to the angry users: "We didn't want to, those people you elected forced us to do it".
By being voluntary it doesn't make mainstream news, people don't vote against it, and users who do find out trust their telco less.
Maybe because they then want to sell the tech to US telecos trying to comply with CALEA? Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to greed.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get why doing this voluntarily is a good thing.
My read on it is that the telcos don't want to have to comply with laws forcing them to cooperate, so they're just willing to do it in the first place. As a happy side effect, the voluntary implementation would be much less "noisy", saving the telcos from looking like they would happily sell out their customers.
From the Telco's POV, it's the closest to a win this situation has.
Greater of two evils (Score:5, Insightful)
The typical reason for doing this is "if we don't do it first, subsequent legislation will require us to implement an even more onerous system".
Let's see how that works in practice:
The government simply waits to see what the telcos implement. If it's *more* than they wanted, they stop and say "well done!". If it's *less* than they wanted, then they proceed with legislation, which they were planning to do anyway.
In game theory terms, what does this type of policy maximize?
Re:Greater of two evils (Score:5, Interesting)
Encryptorama (Score:2, Interesting)
It appears that the time has come for an easy to use encryption technology. One that plugs into your computer and allows you to implement your own encryption scheme (that isn't the same as everyone elses). It should also plug into your phone so that your conversation is encrypted. Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear. If its banking or business or anything to do with money or personal records, then encrypt.
Re: (Score:2)
But where do you start encrypting? You have to secure your PC against keyloggers and screen-grabbers even if your disk drive and communications are encrypted. And how would be sure that no man-in-the-middle intercept didn't have the processing power to crack the encryption?
Re: (Score:2)
But even opportunistic encryption would make interception much more costly. Right now it is next to free because everything is being sent over the equivalent of postcards for anybody to read. The evil doers also run the risk of being detected.
Re:Encryptorama (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure if its just janie talking to grandma, they can leave it all in the clear.
Wouldn't it be better if everything were encrypted, so stuff that's actually important / private doesn't stick out like a xmas tree lit in a forest?
In related news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is ridiculous! (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is any spying that should be done it should be by the citizens of Canada on the government. How many little gold nuggets of corruption would be dug up? Quite a few, methinks.
Harper, Toewes, Desmarais, Irving, Bronfman... Just the data of these major players in Canada is probably a gold mine of corruption and fraud in and of itself.
As it stands, terrorism is not being stopped. Elite pedophiles are not being stopped. Innocent citizens are losing their privacy. Government is corrupt and organized cr
now that cell phones are powerful computers (Score:1)
Now that phones are powerful computers, there's no reason not to have PGP-style end to end encryption for all voice and IM traffic, with public key encryption.
Trick is, it has to be a de-facto standard, or you run into the problem that Bob can't call Jane because they use different voice encryption programs, and Jane can't call Alice, so nobody wants to use it.
It has to be as simple as "install this app", and as strong as PGP.
Re: (Score:3)
It has to be as simple as, "it's pre-installed, and negotiates the highest security possible between any two (or more) parties having a conversation of any type."
Re: now that cell phones are powerful computers (Score:1)
That's why my company relies on Skype. Microsoft assures us that it's safe, secure, and reliable. Plus, most people have Skype, and the ones who don't can download it for free. I entrust my company's finance, patent research, and communications only to Microsoft, the secure solution.
Re: (Score:3)
When a company assures you your information is secure, look at what recompense you will receive as a result of them being wrong. That figure is a great indicator of how confident the company is in the security of your information.
I call BS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As an engineer who worked with Eastlink a few years back, I can say with 100% certainty that the RCMP monitor every fucking packet that traverses Eastlink's network. I know because I assisted in the installation of the RCMP's "blackbox" that sits on the inside perimeter of Eastlink's boarder routers. Big Brother HAS ALWAYS been watching, folks.
Yes, but you're neglecting to explain why they want/need them.
Prior to IP phones, the feds would get their court order, go directly to the targets residence, and put their recording device on the pedestal outside to record their analog call directly. They didn't even need to contact the phone company.
Then, along came digital. Now the traffic at the pedestal is white noise. They go to the phone company to ask them to record the call... the phone company would look in the documentation for their Softswitch an
Needn't be BS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with that is the number or device or network been tracked is now in a database at the telco.
The security services in the US, UK did notice that over the years when they put in request for tracking, their case falls apart.
The people of interest just escape or the flow of information stops. The telco, billing and legal system seems to ensure people of interest are able to see the lists of n
Another angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Dudley Do-Right (Score:1)
DDR = East Germany
Nonsense (Score:2)
Two evils (Score:2)
I'm not sure who I would expect to abuse this more, the telecoms or the government.